Friday, December 27, 2013

Our Redwood Forests are not all in protected status and those that are
in designated parks need protection from human impact. Cumulative impacts by human activities have substantial effects. What are cumulative impacts? ”A
cumulative impact is defined as: The impact on the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking
place over a period of time.” (40 CFR 1508.7) Northwest Envtl. Def. Ctr. v.
Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 647 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1244 (D. Or. 2009)

Logging is still ongoing and still taking a toll on our forest
ecosystems, wildlife, and watersheds. Much of our remaining Redwood Forest is
on privately held corporate lands.

Contemporary
forest practices, including grading and building of logging roads and the narrowing of forested
buffers, have altered prime habitat for many species. Our Redwood “rainforests”
forests have been reduced to 2-3 percent of the original old growth that once
existed.Many former clearcuts that I
have visited within the redwood Region of California have been altered forever and
have not recovered from the damage.

The northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, the salmon, various
species of amphibians, and other resident species are depending upon on all of
us for protection of their remaining
habitat and the ecosystems that are the life support for these species.

15,582.6 miles of California
Rivers and Streams are threatened by Silviculture (Forestry) and 10,308.0 miles
are threatened by Forest Roads (Road Construction and Use) (source: data cycle:
California Water Quality Assessment Report 2010).

The increase of marijuana cultivationhas brought into the mix further harm to our forests. Planting and terracing have
resulted in deforestation and habitat fragmentation. Grading, terracing, damming
streams, and road construction without permits, has led to the erosion and
sediment deposits further degrading streams.

A Department of Fish and Wildlife study of two small
watersheds in Humboldt County using aerial imagery indicates that the number of
acres devoted to marijuana growing almost doubled from 2009 to 2012, with an
estimated 550 individual growing operations.

Mendocino County is also fighting back at the damage caused by Marijuana cultivation.In KQED’s California Report web article,
Mendocino County, Sheriff Tom Allman
said, “people disagree about marijuana: its legalization, its medical use, and
how it's grown. These illegal gardens on forest land, however, should
unite disparate groups… No matter where you stand on medical marijuana, I
think we can come together on this," he said. "This is one area
of commonality we have to focus on." - See more at:
http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201204050850/a#sthash.xyehARQO.dpuf

Forestry and marijuana cultivation continue to be a
great concern when many of our remaining Redwood
Region’s rivers and streams have been declared "impaired," under
Section 305b of the Federal Clean Water Act.

This is not at all an issue about pros or cons of legalizing marijuana or
letting forest practices continue unchanged.

What would the Lorax do? Unless
someone cares, human exploitation
of the Redwood Forests continues. This exploitation is unjustified. Do Think about this and then help create a solution.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

The Climate Talks in Warsaw are over.Two weeks of talking and no action.

Have the world's governmental representatives gathered for this year's climate change negotiations forgotten that the world's citizens are demanding that they

act now? Do we have a do nothing Corporatocracy where only corporate interests count?

Here are some comments (see below) that should be considered and do share them with others.It is now up to all of us to act with what power we have-- consumer power--since we are consumers (when we shop) who give our dollars to support those who are standing in the way or we can support those who are working on solutions. Think of where you will or will not spend your dollars.‘Enough is enough’These are the first words of the joint statement (full text here)
from the various environmental groups and NGOs that yesterday decided
to leave the National Stadium at 14:00 in protest. An unprecedented
decision in the history of the COPs that has highlighted the deep
distance between civil society and the policy-makers who have repeatedly
failed to take decisive and effective decisions.source: http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/reflections

NY Times Op-Ed Contributor Climate Crisis: Who Will Act? By
KOFI ANNAN

Published: November 24, 2013

Geneva — The last-minute deal at the United Nations Climate Conference
in Warsaw keeps hopes for a comprehensive successor agreement to the
1997 Kyoto protocol alive. But let us be clear: Much more decisive
action will be needed if we are to stand any chance at fending off the
dangers of climate change.

We now have just one more shot, next year in Peru, to make more
substantive progress toward a successor agreement before the crucial
2015 Paris conference. Even before then, it will be crucial for
governments to put aside narrow national interests in order to ensure
that the pledges made at the 2009 Copenhagen conference — to limit
global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, compared
to pre-industrial levels — are met.

The unprecedented walkouts at the Warsaw climate talks — first, by
representatives of most developing countries on Wednesday, and then by
green groups and N.G.O.’s on Thursday — reveal a growing level of
frustration with what many perceive as a lack of political leadership at
a time when it is needed most.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on November 25, 2013, in The International New York Times.

Now do call, and write (snail mail), email, and twitter your congressional representatives. Tell them that the Warsaw Climate Talks were a failure in that the actions proposed did not address accountable and proactive steps to adopt different technologies to eliminate carbon emissions worldwide as a climate solution.

How many Hurricane Sandys and Typhoon Haiyans and countless extreme weather events do we have to suffer through before our governments wake up? There is no such as clean coal, safe nuclear energy or environmentally clean fracking. There are indeed technological solutions including eliminating the incredible waste that can be adopted. It is time to agree that the negative externalities of polluting technologies can no longer be ignored and we need to stop subsidizing dirty fossil fuels industries.

Monday, November 18, 2013

The
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change/19th session of the Conference of the
Parties (COP 19)-- aka the Warsaw Climate Change Conferenceopened on November 11th,
2013 in Warsaw, Poland and has entered into its second week of
negotiations. The Warsaw Climate Change Conference is scheduled to end November 22nd, 2013
and is racing toward a goal to create a
roadmap for a globally binding climate change agreement in 2015.

As global emissions are
increasing, the challenge is to have significantagreements in creating a draft plan for next
steps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
to be refined at the next major
conference. This would be the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties
(COP) to the UNFCCC and is expected to take place in December 2014 in
Peru.

We are depending on governments to reach
agreements. Yet, with business leaders
and carbon polluting companies standing in the way, the participation ofcivil society -- NGOs, trade unions,
faith-based organizations, indigenous peoples movements, is key to moving these goals forward. But we are all consuming and contributing to the problem. And we argue over who needs to cut back on consumption behaviors. We are all to blame in the ever entangled web of a global economy. And as we argue- Climate Change does not care who is to blame. Climate Change is now an equal opportunity disaster.

Judith Stephenson, Susan F
Crane, Caren Levy,and Mark Maslin recently published their study: " Population, development, and climate change:
links and effects on human health" ( The Lancet, 2013). Their findings conclude
that it is not population that is driving climate change but consumer behavior. See details at:

How do we change the
engine of consumer behavior that is driving climate change? Can we realistically
expect governments to do that?Climate
is a public good. According to the UNFCC “With climate change it is the emissions
of all sources in all nations that determine the concentration of greenhouse
gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. As a consequence, the climate change problem is
inherently a public goods problem. “(see
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=383)

The dilemmathat plagues the COP talks is clearly evident. How can Governments
convince corporations and all people to changetheir production and economic practices and consumption behavior and patterns. It is individuals that are at the crux of the problem!

Our global markets and
trade continues on steeped in oblivion as the problems associated with global warming increase. Who is to blame? This is a question where we all need to take
responsibility for addressing. As we complain about our governments, our governments are left
to operate in a void with the engines of market economics gone wild. It is
up to both consumers and governments to stop thisrunaway train of materialism.

Agenda 21, a program of
action that was agreed upon at the The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de
Janeiro in 1992) called forthe “developing of national policies and strategies to encourage
changes in unsustainable consumption patterns”.Yet, global trade is still increasing as more goods are demanded and shipped around
the planet. Our appetites for stuff and wealth is creating stresses on the eco-systems and theworld’s climate.

With the gap between the
wealthy and the poor increasing each
year- here in the U.S. and around the
world--is it wealthy individuals that need to change how they acquire and
accumulate their wealth??

Greed exists at the top. How much wealth does an individual need? As individuals at lower levels and at the bottom struggle to cope -- land prices increases, housing increases and costs of basic goods and food increase. Meanwhile there is a grand disregard across the board for the health of ecosystems, and oimpacts on clean water and clean air.

(According to the U.S.
Census Bureau Report of 2011, “the nation's official poverty rate in 2011 was
15.0 percent, with 46.2 million people in poverty.” http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf)

We need address this grand accumulation of and holding of wealth and of land access and development by the few as well as consumption and production patterns by the many.

path
towards a globally binding climate change deal in 2015 with the
publication of a proposed roadmap for countries to consider. - See more
at:
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/11/18/un-proposes-roadmap-to-2015-climate-change-deal/#sthash.87NhHuFn.dpuf

path
towards a globally binding climate change deal in 2015 with the
publication of a proposed roadmap for countries to consider. - See more
at:
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/11/18/un-proposes-roadmap-to-2015-climate-change-deal/#sthash.87NhHuFn.dpuf